The difficulty with this system of determining experience points is the subjectivity. The Game Master must utilize the proceeding experience outline with some thought and try to be fair and unbiased. Example: Eight third level characters brimming with magic and armed to the teeth attack and subdue one, lone, fourth level villain or minor monster. The eight players should receive experience points for subduing a minor menace. After all, the poor guy didn't have a chance and presented no real threat to the characters. However, if one or two first or second level characters subdued the same villain, they should receive experience for subduing a major or even a great menace (depending on how powerful it was), because the threat and ingenuity involved were much greater.

That's the closest to "official" that I've seen. However, in my own games I award XP for the number of opponents the PC's overcame. To me, a "minor menace" is something much weaker than the individual P.C.'s, a "major menace" is something roughly on par with the individual P.C.'s, and a "great menace" is roughly something much more powerful than the individual P.C.'s.

_________________Zerebus: "I like MDC. MDC is a hundred times better than SDC."

kiralon: "...the best way to kill an old one is to crash a moon into it."

The difficulty with this system of determining experience points is the subjectivity. The Game Master must utilize the proceeding experience outline with some thought and try to be fair and unbiased. Example: Eight third level characters brimming with magic and armed to the teeth attack and subdue one, lone, fourth level villain or minor monster. The eight players should receive experience points for subduing a minor menace. After all, the poor guy didn't have a chance and presented no real threat to the characters. However, if one or two first or second level characters subdued the same villain, they should receive experience for subduing a major or even a great menace (depending on how powerful it was), because the threat and ingenuity involved were much greater.

That's the closest to "official" that I've seen. However, in my own games I award XP for the number of opponents the PC's overcame. To me, a "minor menace" is something much weaker than the individual P.C.'s, a "major menace" is something roughly on par with the individual P.C.'s, and a "great menace" is roughly something much more powerful than the individual P.C.'s.

Thanks. You said in your games you award based it on the number of opponents...could you explain it to me? I was thinking similiar.

For skills I only give xp if it was worth them doing, IE im npt giving xp for cooking breakfast or driving on a paved road.If you think something is magical and you roll lore magic, even if you fail ypu would get the xp . Even if its the wrong skill like its psi based and lore psionics would have been correct, becuase it was worth doing and checking.Otherwise you end up wirh one person backfliping all day and expecting xp for it.

For skills I only give xp if it was worth them doing, IE im npt giving xp for cooking breakfast or driving on a paved road.If you think something is magical and you roll lore magic, even if you fail ypu would get the xp . Even if its the wrong skill like its psi based and lore psionics would have been correct, becuase it was worth doing and checking.Otherwise you end up wirh one person backfliping all day and expecting xp for it.

The difficulty with this system of determining experience points is the subjectivity. The Game Master must utilize the proceeding experience outline with some thought and try to be fair and unbiased. Example: Eight third level characters brimming with magic and armed to the teeth attack and subdue one, lone, fourth level villain or minor monster. The eight players should receive experience points for subduing a minor menace. After all, the poor guy didn't have a chance and presented no real threat to the characters. However, if one or two first or second level characters subdued the same villain, they should receive experience for subduing a major or even a great menace (depending on how powerful it was), because the threat and ingenuity involved were much greater.

That's the closest to "official" that I've seen. However, in my own games I award XP for the number of opponents the PC's overcame. To me, a "minor menace" is something much weaker than the individual P.C.'s, a "major menace" is something roughly on par with the individual P.C.'s, and a "great menace" is roughly something much more powerful than the individual P.C.'s.

Thanks. You said in your games you award based it on the number of opponents...could you explain it to me? I was thinking similiar.

Sure, here's an example: The group walks into the final room after navigating their way through a deadly maze full of traps and monsters. The big bad villain (a "great menace") is on the other side of this room, ready to fight them all. In between the villain and the P.C.'s are a dozen of the villain's faceless minions (all "minor menaces"). Through tenacity, ingenuity, and a little luck the players all worked together to overcome these threats. Thus I award them the following:

1 mark in each player's columns in the XP table for the row labeled as "Defeating a "Great Menace"

12 marks in each player's columns in the XP table for the row labeled as "Defeating a "Minor Menace"

Additional marks in various player's columns for other XP-gaining activities, such as a "Clever, but Futile Idea" or "Quick Thinking" or "Playing in Character". These marks I make all throughout the game, actually, as they come up, and not just during or after combat.

cbrekkas wrote:

Also do you award for skill use?

Thanks again

I do. I award skill use XP similarly to what I described just above, but I only award the points for skill use if the player using the skill at that time had some value to the game. Typically, when I call for a skill check, they will get a mark in that XP column. When they decide on their own I have to make a judgement call on whether or not the skill use should award XP. A good guideline is "Are they using the skill because they're bored? Are they clearly using the skill just to gain the XP?" In cases like those the answer's typically "No XP"

Hope that helps!

_________________Zerebus: "I like MDC. MDC is a hundred times better than SDC."

kiralon: "...the best way to kill an old one is to crash a moon into it."

The difficulty with this system of determining experience points is the subjectivity. The Game Master must utilize the proceeding experience outline with some thought and try to be fair and unbiased. Example: Eight third level characters brimming with magic and armed to the teeth attack and subdue one, lone, fourth level villain or minor monster. The eight players should receive experience points for subduing a minor menace. After all, the poor guy didn't have a chance and presented no real threat to the characters. However, if one or two first or second level characters subdued the same villain, they should receive experience for subduing a major or even a great menace (depending on how powerful it was), because the threat and ingenuity involved were much greater.

That's the closest to "official" that I've seen. However, in my own games I award XP for the number of opponents the PC's overcame. To me, a "minor menace" is something much weaker than the individual P.C.'s, a "major menace" is something roughly on par with the individual P.C.'s, and a "great menace" is roughly something much more powerful than the individual P.C.'s.

Thanks. You said in your games you award based it on the number of opponents...could you explain it to me? I was thinking similiar.

Sure, here's an example: The group walks into the final room after navigating their way through a deadly maze full of traps and monsters. The big bad villain (a "great menace") is on the other side of this room, ready to fight them all. In between the villain and the P.C.'s are a dozen of the villain's faceless minions (all "minor menaces"). Through tenacity, ingenuity, and a little luck the players all worked together to overcome these threats. Thus I award them the following:

1 mark in each player's columns in the XP table for the row labeled as "Defeating a "Great Menace"

12 marks in each player's columns in the XP table for the row labeled as "Defeating a "Minor Menace"

Additional marks in various player's columns for other XP-gaining activities, such as a "Clever, but Futile Idea" or "Quick Thinking" or "Playing in Character". These marks I make all throughout the game, actually, as they come up, and not just during or after combat.

cbrekkas wrote:

Also do you award for skill use?

Thanks again

I do. I award skill use XP similarly to what I described just above, but I only award the points for skill use if the player using the skill at that time had some value to the game. Typically, when I call for a skill check, they will get a mark in that XP column. When they decide on their own I have to make a judgement call on whether or not the skill use should award XP. A good guideline is "Are they using the skill because they're bored? Are they clearly using the skill just to gain the XP?" In cases like those the answer's typically "No XP"

Hope that helps!

Thanks that helps

Page 1 of 1

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Display posts from previous:Sort by

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum